P&H High Court in a ruling in the case of Vinod Kumar Jain Vs. CIT held that Assessee gets title to the properly on the issuance cf an allotment letter and the payment cf instalments is only a consequential action upon which the delivery of possession flows and in calculation of holding period the period from the date of allotment and upto the date of possession will also be counted.
Under section 2(1)(v) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (‘HGST Act’), ‘sale’ included supply, by way of or as part of any service or in any other manner whatsoever of goods, being food or any other article for human consumption or any drink (whether or not intoxicating), where such supply or service, is for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration.
The Assessing Officer added the difference between purchase price disclosed in the sale deed and purchase price of the property adopted for the purpose of paying the stamp duty to the total income of the assessee as income from unexplained sources. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted this addition by holding that section 50C is a deeming provision for the purpose of bringing to tax the difference as capital gain.
Appeal by revenue against the order of Tribunal setting aside penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 – The Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the assessee did not have the requisite mens rea to evade payment of service tax
On further appeal by the respondent-dealer who issued invoices, the Tribunal vide order dated 16.9.2009, reduced the penalty to 10% taking into account that 100% penalty had already been levied on the assessee who claimed Cenvat Credit wrongly. 100% penalty has already been levied on the assessee wrongly claiming the benefit of Cenvat Credit, the view taken by Tribunal in reducing penalty in the case of the respondent cannot be said to be perverse so as to hold that a substantial question of law arises.
Section 44AD of the Act was inserted by Finance Act, 1994 w.e.f. 1.4.1994. Sub-section (1) of Section 44AD clearly provides that where an assessee is engaged in the business of civil construction or supply of labour for civil construction, income shall be estimated at 8% of the gross receipts paid or payable to the assessee in the previous year on account of such business or a sum higher than the aforesaid sum as may be declared by the assessee in his return of income notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Sections 28 to 43C of the Act. This income is to be deemed to be the profits and gains of said business chargeable of tax under the head “profits and gains” of business. However, the said provisions are applicable where the gross receipts paid or payable does not exceed Rs.40 lacs.
As soon as the land of the assessee is requisitioned and stood vested in the State, he does not remain its owner and the mere inchoate right to receive the enhanced compensation cannot possibly be treated as assets and included in his wealth subsequently.
We do not find that on all the four counts, demand was raised on the ground of clearance of goods with intent to evade payment of duty. Demand relating to third count and relating to samples was clearly demand on account of legal issues so it cannot be held that there was intention to evade payment of duty. So penalty in respect of these two counts is not sustainable.
Merely because the Motor Vehicles Act provides for granting of tourist permit, it would not automatically mean that section 65 of Finance Act, 1994 also contemplates only a tourist permit and not otherwise; if the vehicle is used for providing transport service then it will amount to providing taxable service under the Finance Act.
The assessee purchased US-64 Units of the UTI in May 1990 for Rs. 3.75 crs, received dividend thereon of Rs. 45 lakhs and sold the units in July 1990 for Rs. 3.25 crs. The assessee claimed that deduction u/s 80M was available on the dividend and that a short-term capital loss of Rs. 51.61 lakhs on purchase and sale of units was allowable.
